Experimental Study of Sand Production from a Supported Wellbore in Weakly Consolidated Sandstone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deployment of expandable technology for sand control is experiencing rapid growth. While several expandable systems have been developed, assessment of their long-term performance and effectiveness has not. To alleviate some concerns and uncertainties, criteria are provided in this paper for assessing the possibility of sanding in wellbores that employ reticulated expandable completions and to illustrate an in-depth understanding of the mechanism under which such screens may prevent sand grain mobilization. To investigate these issues, a series of experiments were conducted using hollow cylinder synthetic sandstone samples involving both fine- and coarse-grained sands. A stiffener of two different opening sizes supported the central hole to check if sanding takes place and if so, how great the influence of the opening size relative to the grain size is in dictating the operational limits. The experiments on weakly-consolidated sandstones showed that expandable completions were successful in preventing any shear failure around the wellbore. Under excessive drawdown/depletion, volumetric failure (pore collapse) proved to be a plausible failure mechanism in the material. Nevertheless, much less sanding occurred, and this improvement was attributed to grain-to-grain friction, enhancements of effective stresses at the wellface, and some degree of conservation of the original structure of the material, although at the state of pore collapse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".